Two Pacemaker Placement Methods for People With Permanent Atrial Fibrillation
Compares two ways of placing a pacemaker in adults with permanent atrial fibrillation.
Plain-language title generated from the registry record
Registry title: Bundle Branch Pacing to Preserve Ejection Fraction in Atrial Fibrillation Trial
Key facts
- Where
- Poitiers, FranceSee the site
Could this be for you?
Answer for yourself. This is not a decision: only the study team can say whether you can take part.
- Are you between 18 and 90 years old?
Source: NCT07759700, who can take part
Where in France
- CHU PoitiersPoitiers, FranceTaking people
Questions to ask the study team
- How often do I need to come in, and for how long each time?
- Are travel costs paid?
- Can I keep my own doctor?
- What happens if I want to stop?
Trial details
- Who runs it
- Poitiers University Hospital
- Trial code
- NCT07759700
- Record updated
- 19 October 2026
- Original description
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn whether left bundle branch area pacing, a technique designed to activate the heart's natural electrical conduction system, is better than conventional right ventricular pacing in adults with permanent atrial fibrillation, preserved heart pumping function, and a need for a pacemaker.Read full original descriptionShow less
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Conventional Right Ventricular Pacing as Initial Strategy for Patients With Permanent Atrial Fibrillation and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Requiring Cardiac Pacing: an Open-label, Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial. - the BEAT Study -
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn whether left bundle branch area pacing, a technique designed to activate the heart's natural electrical conduction system, is better than conventional right ventricular pacing in adults with permanent atrial fibrillation, preserved heart pumping function, and a need for a pacemaker.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Does left bundle branch area pacing reduce the risk of death, unplanned hospitalization for heart failure, or the need to replace the initial pacing system with biventricular pacing over 2 years? Does it better preserve heart function and quality of life, without increasing pacemaker-related complications?
Researchers will compare left bundle branch area pacing with conventional right ventricular pacing. A total of 642 participants will be randomly assigned to receive one of these two pacing strategies.
Participants will:
Have a single-chamber pacemaker implanted using either left bundle branch area pacing or conventional right ventricular pacing Undergo electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and pacemaker checks during 2 years of follow-up Attend follow-up visits approximately 2, 12, and 24 months after implantation Be contacted by telephone approximately 6 and 18 months after implantation Complete questionnaires about their health and quality of life at the beginning and end of the study
Inclusion: Age ≥ 18 years and <90 years; Atrial fibrillation requiring ventricular pacing because of; rapid atrial fibrillation requiring atrioventricular node ablation; or; slow atrial fibrillation i.e. ≤ 50 bpm on admission ECG); Left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%; Affiliated person or beneficiary of the French social security scheme; Having given their informed consent.
Exclusion: Any prior attempt at implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy or LBBA pacing; Chronic respiratory failure; Serious medical condition with life expectancy of <2 years; Pregnant or breastfeeding women, women of childbearing age who do not have effective contraception (hormonal/mechanical: per os, injectable, transcutaneous, implantable, intrauterine device, or surgical: tubal ligation, hysterectomy, total oophorectomy); Indication for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator; Presence of a mechanical tricuspid valve; Glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min/1,73m2 with CKD-EPI formula; Persons benefiting from enhanced protection, i.e. minors, persons deprived of their liberty by a judicial or administrative decision, persons staying in a health or social institution, adults under legal protection, and finally patients in emergency situations.